Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(IS)6/08
File Number:	CIS 3255 2005
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge M. Rowland
Date Of Decision:	19/12/2007
Date Added:	28/01/2008
Main Category:	Residence and presence conditions
Main Subcategory:	right to reside
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Residence and presence conditions – right to reside – whether EEA citizen may have a right of residence conferred under the Immigration Act 1971 The claimant, a Norwegian national of Somali origin, came to the UK in August 2003 with her four children to live with her father who had claimed asylum. Her father became a naturalised British Citizen in July 2004. In August 2004 she claimed income support which was disallowed on the ground that she did not have a right to reside in the United Kingdom and therefore could not be treated as habitually resident here (regulation 21 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, as then in force). She appealed saying that she had to care for her father. The tribunal dismissed her appeal. A Commissioner granted leave to appeal because, while it appeared that the claimant had no right of residence as her father’s carer under European Community law or under the Agreement on the European Economic Area 1992 in the light of Abdirahman v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 657 (reported as R(IS) 8/07), the tribunal had not investigated whether she had a right of residence as a dependant of her father. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. The father’s right of residence was by virtue of domestic law only and, there being no evidence before the Commissioner that he had any right of residence under European Community law or under the Agreement on the European Economic Area 1992, the claimant had no right of residence as a dependant under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 and the tribunal’s failure to investigate the father’s position had therefore made no difference to the outcome of the appeal (paragraph 3); 2. The claimant might have been able to obtain leave to remain under the Immigration Act 1971, which would have conferred a right of residence, but only with effect from the date the immigration authorities made the necessary decision (paragraph 6).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(IS) 6-08 ws.doc